Missouri Man Is First Private Business Owner to Sue HHS Over Contraception Mandate

(CNSNews.com) - A conservative civil rights group has filed a first-of-its-kind federal lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of a Missouri business owner who says the HHS contraceptive mandate violates his constitutionally-protected religious beliefs.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Center for Law and Justice, requests a permanent injunction prohibiting the HHS from requiring those who have religious objections to abide by the mandate, which requires employers to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to the HHS mandate from a private business owner and his company. Until now, only religious organizations or institutions have brought lawsuits challenging the mandate.

Frank R. O'Brien, a Catholic, is the chairman of St.-Louis-based O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, which operates a number of businesses that explore, mine, and process refractory and ceramic raw materials.

O'Brien says his religious beliefs provide the framework for the operation of his businesses, which employ 87 people. The company website states the OIH mission "is to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society."

A statement of the company's values begins with the following: "Integrity. Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We will not discriminate based on anyone's personal belief system."

"The HHS mandate would require business people like our client to leave their religious beliefs at home every day as a condition of doing business in our society," said ACLJ's Francis J. Manion, who is representing O'Brien. "The HHS mandate tells people like Frank O'Brien that they have to choose between conducting their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, or conducting their business in a manner consistent with the government's values. The constitution does not allow the government to impose such a choice."

The lawsuit contends that the HHS mandate "imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs' free exercise of religion by coercing Plaintiffs to choose between conducting their business in accordance with their religious beliefs or paying substantial penalties to the government."
Manion rejects criticism that opposition to the mandate somehow prohibits others from obtaining the insurance coverage that suits them:
"O'Brien and other people of faith aren't looking to stand in the way of anybody's access to anything," said Manion. "They just don't want the government forcing them to pay for services that go against their sincerely-held beliefs."

Manion noted that the State of Missouri has its own 'contraceptives mandate,' but it allows exemptions for those with religious objectios: "There is no good reason why the federal government couldn't -- and shouldn't - do the same. The Constitution, in fact, demands nothing less," Manion said.

The lawsuit, posted here, asks the court to declare that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The lawsuit names as defendants, the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Sebelius; the Department of the Treasury and Secretary Geithner; and the Department of Labor and Secretary Solis.

Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.

Statement A

"A statement of the company's values begins with the following: "Integrity. Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We will not discriminate based on anyone's personal belief system."

Statement B

"The HHS mandate would require business people like our client to leave their religious beliefs at home every day as a condition of doing business in our society,"

So they will not discriminate anyone belief system there.....as long asMore.. its the same as their own.....I hate people that try to enforce their morality on others.Less..

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

copperdog3

@copperdog3 It's discrimination based on someones personal beliefs.... Companies should not be allowed to operate in such a manner in a country that claims to promote freedom. What happens if every workplace did that, what if they decide to stop hiring people not from their specific religion?

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

Itchy999

@Itchy999
It is not discrimination unless you are compelled against your will. Get this now: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO WORK THERE. That is freedom. The government telling companies and individuals what they will or will not do is tyranny. Please, get an education before you start typing. Its a massive waste of electrons just reading comments like this.

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

copperdog3

@copperdog3 Instead of trying to look smart with your remark at the end why not answer my question rather than regurgitate what you said before. What if every company decided to stop hiring people that are not from a specific religion........what would happen if some christian run business began to run a towns economy and would not hire anyone it knows is not a true Christian leaving many in that town homeless as in brings in workers itself from another town. What about then? Any remark like wasMore..te of electrons or you're a kid in a basement tell me I don't have much to say so I'll just make easy jackass remarks.....Less..

Posted Mar-17-2012 By

Itchy999

@Itchy999
"What if every company decided to stop hiring people that are not from a specific religion..."

I'm struggling to envision how that might work. Its ridiculous. The market would never let that happen. As soon as the "Christian" companies reached critical mass, another company will come in and tap the market being shunned by the Christian companies. Barring that, no one is forced to live in that town or work for those companies.

That's the difference in a privatMore..ely owned and operated company doing what they want thereby living with the economic consequences and the feds telling that same company what they will and will not do. Especially when it comes anywhere close to moral issues.

Your examples are just too far-fetched to even simulate a realistic possibility.Less..

Posted Mar-17-2012 By

copperdog3

Comment of user 'fido321' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!

When islamic business owners start complaining that it's a violation of their religious beliefs when being forced to pay interest on loans, I wonder if the same "conservative civil rights groups" will have their backs?

Somehow I don't think they'll be as keen to carry that tune.

If religious zealots can't abide by the same rules as other business owners, maybe they shouldn't be in business to begin with. Just stay home and pray for money, and good luck with that.

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

VitriolKOF

@VitriolKOF
No one will be forcing the mythical muslim to take the loan if they don't want to. If the big O were dictating that all businesses must take a loan, you might have a point. As it is, you just don't like conservatives.

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

sgtloverlips

I'll allow that I don't like conservatives, at least the ones who currently self-profess that dubious honor. All too often it's used as a smokescreen to scam people into voting against their own interests.

But rest assured it has nothing to do with political party- I don't like either of the Big Two here in the states.

So... muslims (excluding those lucky few who are already filthy rich, I suppose) should be forced to choose between applying for a necessary loan or not going intoMore.. business at all? Tell me again how that's different from a catholic having to choose between providing necessary health insurance or not being in business at all...?

It's down to religion. You can't spin that away. Bowing to the dictates of any religious cult opens the door to other cults demanding their own concessions. Otherwise, our government has effectively been taken over by a silent, secret coup.

If the USA is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Jeezus Inc, they should go ahead and make it official by dissolving the three governmental branches and replacing them with one committee of bishops or whatthefuckever.

VitriolKOF

You clearly demonstrate that you are a flaming liberal when you suggest that muslims cannot get a business loan. You show yourself to be a basement-dwelling twit with no business experience beyond flipping burgers. Business loans require two willing participants. If the "muslim" objects to the lender's politics and religion, DON'T More..TAKE THE DAMN LOAN. How hard is this? Nevermind. I forgot. You're a liberal. Your history started about ten minutes ago.

Please, in your next eighth grade civics class, focus on the ideals of freedom and the free market. Private businesses are free to run their operations in any way they want. The market will react to that and either reward the owner's choices or not. That is how it works. You, if you even qualify for a job, can choose to work there or not. Damn. Can you get your sad little mental arms around that idea? There is no government purpose here.

You represent the very worst part of American society. You think the government can fix whatever ails you because every hangnail makes you a victim and it must be somebody's fault. Get the hell out. Go peddle that outlook in the middle east and let us all know how it works out for you.Less..

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

NoGodButAlan

@NoGodButAlan - Women have the rights to buy contraceptives. He is not taking away their rights. He just does not want to pay for the contraceptives. Some contraceptive medication is used for medical ailments. At this point they are no longer contraceptives, they are hormones.

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

NoGodButAlan

@NoGodButAlan Where do women derive the right to make other people pay for their condoms? Is it a Constitutional right or a natural right?
What about homosexuals and the elderly and those who want children? They're crazy religious nuts because they don't want to be forced to pay for someones birth control?

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

lonewolf6972

@lonewolf6972 In Britain, we give condoms away. We figure a condom is cheaper than an abortion, or an orphan. And it promotes safer sex, keeps the population healthier. You obviously don't care about any of that. As I said earlier, it's about the Missouri Man's beliefs. And my point still stands. No talk of a few cents for a condom is going to take away from that fact.

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

NoGodButAlan

@NoGodButAlan You believe that it's the right of atheists to impose their beliefs on everyone else through force. This man isn't forcing his beliefs on anyone. He just wants to be left alone to do business in a manner consistent with his beliefs with those who freely want to do business with him.

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

lonewolf6972

Everyone's religious and non-religius beliefs need to be thrown into the lawsuit here. This business owner states he's filing this lawsuit because "the HHS contraceptive mandate violates his constitutionally-protected religious beliefs." Are his religious beliefs the only religious or non-religious beliefs being violated here? Is he violating the constitutional rights of people who will now be refused health coverage for contraceptive, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs? That'sMore.. the important, "very forgotten" piece missing in the lawsuit, as well as, this overall posting.Less..

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

seangail

Comment of user 'fido321' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!

@seangail
Been a while since I was in school but I don't recall any language whatsoever in the Constitution about health insurance and rubbers. Insurance is a benefit of employment. Not a requirement. The employees are free to work anywhere they want. Thanks to the big O and the HHS, the business owner has no such leeway.

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

copperdog3

@copperdog3 There was no mention or suggestion by me of health insurance and "rubbers" being in the Constitution. That's not what we're even talking of here. This man "thinks" the HHS mandate may violate his constitutionally protected religious beliefs. He's not suing. It's interesting that it is a "conservative" civil rights group that is filing a lawsuit. The ACLJ is shady at best and has been under the watchful eye of the IRS for a while now. They call themselveMore..s "non-profit", but ACLJ had applied as a charity focused on First Amendment issues.
When any case in which you are involved ceases to involve First Amendment issues, your participation therein will end. The IRS informed the ACLJ of this in a letter dated May 1994. But ACLJ’s recent lawsuits, including ones against health-care reform legislation and Planned Parenthood in Los Angeles, are far from containing arguments based on the First Amendment. Not a lot of credibility in them.Less..

Posted Mar-17-2012 By

seangail

From the article:
"A statement of the company's values begins with the following: "Integrity. Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE based on anyone's personal belief system."

Yet he is claiming it IS HIS RIGHT to discriminate by not providing contraceptive coverage. How inane is that?!

dontknowzed

Posted Mar-16-2012 By

lonewolf6972

Most Americans don't understand that many hormonal forms of birth control (the pill) are in fact abortifacients. They do not keep an egg from being fertilized, instead they keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. Since many American's believe life to be sacred and also believe life begins at the beginning, i.e. inception, it is morally unacceptable to be forced to pay for the wholesale distribution of abortifacients.